I think this is great. Hoping to do something similar with my yard. Why is this community so trash? Very disappointing. If you don’t get the idea behind no lawns, why don’t you go somewhere else. This is pointless. Also there won’t be any ticks or snakes in the middle of suburbia surrounded by ecological wasteland lawns. Clueless commenters.
Still not understanding everyone’s belief this is satire or unhinged. This is the “No Lawns” community right? Have some balls.
I like this, will have to check out the novels for my kids too!
Good arguments in this thread! Cheers
Do these dreams require remote work? When we bought a house, proximity to public transportation and centers of employment were large considerations. How can that be resolved if some people working in “the big city” while others work remotely and others work in an exurban location?
I hear that. But my wife and I regularly debate about the role of family. I don’t know if it’s more American culture to view family as more “disposable”, e.g. they can be cut-off if toxic, etc. Being originally an (eastern) European, my mentality is that family (or blood-bonds to be dramatic) are always more serious than friends. To that end, I always thought having a large villa with multiple wings for multi-generational housing would be more appealing. My mother and wife (stereotype much?) don’t get along, so maybe a challenging proposition…
I agree with your points. Though for me a big difference has been friends I made before ~25 and friends after 25. There is no way I would want to live anywhere near friends I made before that age. Being in my early thirties, who knows how I’ll feel 10 years down the line. Doing this communal living is a big commitment which might be hard to get out of.
That’s a great point. I hadn’t thought about it quite that way before. Thanks.
I had to think about this a bit. Ultimately, I still can’t think of any historical precedents where a people reacted proactively to a threat with relatively unknown consequences (to the individual). Maybe I’m missing something.
While it does no harm (and in fact probably makes sense) to invest in multiple strategies to fight climate change as a society, I have to admit that I don’t think attempting to change people’s minds regarding climate change is the most effectual. Consider that not only do you have to convince the “Western” world (which already has a high standard of living) to reduce emissions, you also have to somewhat repress development of nations which are striving to industrialize and will almost certainly be emitting more greenhouse and toxic gases in the future. See China, India, Africa, etc.
I agree that blaming consumers is counter-productive to the goal of convincing society to be more sustainable, but given the limited time we have, technologies like carbon capture, fusion, massive solar/wind, should be the core strategy in ameliorating the effects of climate change.
Slowing/stopping/reversing climate change could be achieved much more readily if “people” (in general or specifically activists) were willing to accept some sacrifice, which is to say decrease in their standard of living.
However, I think that’s a third rail that no one wants to touch. See “veganism is too hard”, “biking takes too long”, “I’m really busy, I have to use plastic water bottles”, etc. There are of course people for which it really is not possible, but also many where they are just unwilling to sacrifice.
Therefore, the only way to maintain our current standard of living while ameliorating climate change is through rapid technological advancement. I’m not hopeful.
Awesome, thank you, signed up!